4 ms·

IMO firing the people inside the agency wasn't enough. He needs to install anti-union replacements to destroy it from the inside.

onemoresoop 2y ago
Why anti union? Union protect workers, is there a war being waged on workers now?
- Acrobatic_Road 2y ago
  Unions produce nothing and don't innovate. Yes, they can benefit some people, but they provide no net societal benefit. In fact, they are a net negative because they misallocate resources (such as by keeping factories open producing cars that nobody wants).
  - onemoresoop 2y ago
    They could benefit some people? They benefit the workers who would otherwise be worked literally to death. I wish they were not necessary but they came to existence exactly for this exact reason. If you could come up with an equitable and non exploitative system that works for everyone, suddenly you no longer have a need for unions.
    - Acrobatic_Road 2y ago
      >They could benefit some people? They benefit the workers who would otherwise be worked literally to death. The problem is that they benefit workers not through productivity increases, but via collective bargaining, i.e. at the expense of society. Consider that when unions go on strike, they reduce economic productivity and disrupt the economy. Likewise, when unions fight to prevent factories from closing to protect the jobs of workers, this causes an inefficient allocation of resources - so now companies must bid up the prices of raw materials to produce things that nobody wants just to keep some people employed. Unions oppose automation for similar reasons, which is why we have the most inefficient ports in the world (worse than Africa!). So in sum, unions do literally nothing to make society better off. What benefits unionized workers receive come at cost of society (including other unionized workers!) >If you could come up with an equitable and non exploitative system that works for everyone, suddenly you no longer have a need for unions. Capitalism is working great, actually. It would work better without unions.
  - gaganyaan 2y ago
    This is braindead capitalist propaganda. Stop filling your head with garbage. At the very least, keep it to yourself so other people don't have to smell it. Gross.
    - Acrobatic_Road 2y ago
      Economics is braindead capitalist propaganda. Got it.
      - gaganyaan 2y ago
        "Economics" in the sense of "blathering on about nonsense opinions", yes. "Economics" in the sense of "any sort of understanding of how the world works", not so much. Drain the rot from your brain. Ew.
        Acrobatic_Road 2y ago
        Nothing I'm saying is particularly hard to understand or controversial - and that's with most economists being left-wing! If a field dominated by the left can't even find strong support for unions, then perhaps its actually you who lacks "any sort of understanding of how the world works".
mystraline 2y ago
How I'm reading and interpreting this, is that you dont want workers collectively communicating and joining forces at a negotiating table. By denouncing this right of peaceably assembling and negotiating at a table of law, means that you're wanting the old solution of mass widespread violence against workers and management. Because this is exactly what happened before. But dont believe me - go read how unions were formed. Most civilized countries have good worker protections. The USA is speedrunning the elimination of worker protections. And it doesn't take too much history knowledge to figure out how that works out. I think the zoomer term is "fuck around and find out". We're in the 'fuck around' stage. I dont want to be here during the 'find out' stage.

onemoresoop 2y ago

Why anti union? Union protect workers, is there a war being waged on workers now?

Acrobatic_Road 2y ago
Unions produce nothing and don't innovate. Yes, they can benefit some people, but they provide no net societal benefit. In fact, they are a net negative because they misallocate resources (such as by keeping factories open producing cars that nobody wants).
- onemoresoop 2y ago
  They could benefit some people? They benefit the workers who would otherwise be worked literally to death. I wish they were not necessary but they came to existence exactly for this exact reason. If you could come up with an equitable and non exploitative system that works for everyone, suddenly you no longer have a need for unions.
  - Acrobatic_Road 2y ago
    >They could benefit some people? They benefit the workers who would otherwise be worked literally to death. The problem is that they benefit workers not through productivity increases, but via collective bargaining, i.e. at the expense of society. Consider that when unions go on strike, they reduce economic productivity and disrupt the economy. Likewise, when unions fight to prevent factories from closing to protect the jobs of workers, this causes an inefficient allocation of resources - so now companies must bid up the prices of raw materials to produce things that nobody wants just to keep some people employed. Unions oppose automation for similar reasons, which is why we have the most inefficient ports in the world (worse than Africa!). So in sum, unions do literally nothing to make society better off. What benefits unionized workers receive come at cost of society (including other unionized workers!) >If you could come up with an equitable and non exploitative system that works for everyone, suddenly you no longer have a need for unions. Capitalism is working great, actually. It would work better without unions.
- gaganyaan 2y ago
  This is braindead capitalist propaganda. Stop filling your head with garbage. At the very least, keep it to yourself so other people don't have to smell it. Gross.
  - Acrobatic_Road 2y ago
    Economics is braindead capitalist propaganda. Got it.
    - gaganyaan 2y ago
      "Economics" in the sense of "blathering on about nonsense opinions", yes. "Economics" in the sense of "any sort of understanding of how the world works", not so much. Drain the rot from your brain. Ew.
      - Acrobatic_Road 2y ago
        Nothing I'm saying is particularly hard to understand or controversial - and that's with most economists being left-wing! If a field dominated by the left can't even find strong support for unions, then perhaps its actually you who lacks "any sort of understanding of how the world works".

mystraline 2y ago

How I'm reading and interpreting this, is that you dont want workers collectively communicating and joining forces at a negotiating table. By denouncing this right of peaceably assembling and negotiating at a table of law, means that you're wanting the old solution of mass widespread violence against workers and management. Because this is exactly what happened before. But dont believe me - go read how unions were formed. Most civilized countries have good worker protections. The USA is speedrunning the elimination of worker protections. And it doesn't take too much history knowledge to figure out how that works out. I think the zoomer term is "fuck around and find out". We're in the 'fuck around' stage. I dont want to be here during the 'find out' stage.